Shared Book Reading: Parental Goals Across the Primary Grades and Goal–Behavior Relationships in Junior Kindergarten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies are reported. The first investigated goals for reading with their children held by 294 parents in a cross-sectional sample from junior kindergarten through Grade 3, how these goals are related to parent beliefs about the development of literacy skills, and how these goals may differ across the primary years. The second examined how goals relate to parent behavior. From a different sample of 119 parents completing the same goal survey and observed in shared book reading, a subsample of 42 parents with contrasting goals was selected for analysis. Findings indicated 5 distinct parent goals for shared book reading—Stimulate Development, Foster Reading, Bond With Child, Soothe Child, and Enjoy Books—with the goals of enjoying books and bonding with the child rated the highest and equally highly at each grade. These were followed by fostering reading, stimulating their child's development, and lastly soothing their child. The goal of fostering reading was more highly rated by parents of Grade 1 children than by parents of children in any other grade. Only a modest relationship between goals and beliefs was found. Finally, parents who rated fostering reading high as a goal engaged in more print-referencing behaviors and echoed more reading than did parents with contrasting goal profiles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".